Interleaved ...

Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 29 Jan 2011, at 06:27, ColinHales wrote:


Now say "humans are conscious? Prove it."
To which I say "COMP is true? Prove it"
Been around this loop many times. :-)



COMP is a solution of x -> ~Bx, like consciousness, and consistency.

If COMP is true, it is no provable.
If I am conscious, then I cannot communicate it in any public way (just intimate way) If a machine is consistent, then the machine cannot prove its consistency.

Those three statement are provable, communicable, etc.

Actually all proposition in G* minus G are of the type true but not provable. Same for the intensional variants Z* minus Z, etc.

I guess we agree on this.

Colin, you didn't answer my question. Are you aware that If comp is true, that is if I am a machine, then the universe (or whatever exists) is NOT a machine. So comp entails the falsity of digital physics, and given that digital physics implies comp, it shows that digital physics is inconsistent no matter what (with or without comp). You did confuse in some recent posts comp and digital physics.

Bruno
'digital physics' is meaningless to me, so it doesn't imply COMP or anything else.

A) There is a natural world.
B) There is a description of that natural world.
      It need not be unique, many (B) correspond to one (A)
      From within (A)/part of (A), a scientist S can compile a (B),
      S can never know if it's completely done.
C) There is a description of how the natural world as it appears to an observer inside it.
      It need not be unique, many (C) correspond to one (A)
From within (A)/part of (A), a scientist can compile a (B), but no (C) ever explains observation.

a computer running description/rules (B) is not the natural world.
a computer running description/rules (C) is not the natural world.
(C) is physics that present day scientists construct
(B) is physics of a natural world prior to an observer.
(A) is 'NATURALLY computing' in the sense that it is literally 'computing' scientist S.

Note: A 'Turing Machine' is something inside (A), made of (A) like scientist S. Tape, reader, writer etc. It can manipulate sybolic representations of rules (B) or rules (C). (A) is 'NATURALLY computing' the Turing Machine, just like it's 'NATURALLY computing' scientist S.
i.e. The 'computing' on the Turing machine is not  'NATURAL computing'

Please do not use rules of type (C) that apparently invoke multiverses. They are an artefact of implicit beliefs that confuse (A) and (C).

If you could explain, in these terms, what 'digital physics' is, then maybe we can get ourselves better calibrated.

cheers
Colin
PS I am well aware of consistency and completeness. Each of these can be discussed separately under (A), (B), (C).

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to